Replacing FitzPatrick: How the Closure of a Nuclear Reactor Can Reduce Greenhouse Gasses and Radioactive Waste, while Creating Jobs and Supporting the Local Community
An analysis of replacement scenarios for the FitzPatrick nuclear power plant shows that the reactor’s entire electricity output could be replaced by lower-cost, clean energy resources with funds left over for worker and community transition support and fossil fuel displacement.
Summary of Key Findings
This preliminary analysis by Alliance for a Green Economy and Nuclear Information and Resource Service examines the arguments for subsidizing the FitzPatrick nuclear reactor, particularly around the potential impact on greenhouse gas emissions and the economic hardship for the local community. We set out to compare the cost of clean replacement for FitzPatrick’s electricity output as well as alternatives to economically supporting the municipalities and workers currently reliant on FitzPatrick.
Our key conclusions:
- FitzPatrick’s full electricity generation could be replaced with energy efficiency and wind at less than the current cost of electricity from the nuclear plant.
- Diverting all of FitzPatrick’s revenue to clean energy could result in additional reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, equivalent to a 264 MW coal plant or 330 MW combined cycle natural gas plant.
- Replacing FitzPatrick with efficiency and wind could create more than twice the number of jobs currently provided by Entergy at FitzPatrick.
- Municipalities and workers affected by FitzPatrick’s closure could be supported through the economic transition for a lower cost than subsidizing FitzPatrick, if the state proactively negotiates with Entergy for a responsible and immediate decommissioning.